Earlier last week, as I was enjoying the healthy amount of procrastination that the Thanksgiving break afforded me, I stumbled across a Yahoo article highlighting what would become the source of yet another media frenzy surrounding the Catholic Church’s controversial stance on the use of condoms. The issue this time was the following statement made by Pope Benedict XVI in his book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

Taking this statement completely out of context, several news organizations, such as the Associated Press, Yahoo and The New York Times, confused readers all over the world, particularly young adults, and reignited the debate over college students’ favorite rubber. Within a few hours (as I, of course, continued to procrastinate), Facebook postings by friends at Stanford and other college campuses of various articles with comments like “Controversy or hype?” or “Finally…” filled my screen. I found myself engaging in a debate with a complete stranger on the status of a Facebook friend of mine at Cal State Sacramento. A few days later, I discovered the Scope blog of the Stanford School of Medicine presented a post entitled “Pope, plus science, offer great news on AIDS prevention.” So as I was reading The Wall Street Journal later on that week in an effort to avoid further procrastination on my Poli Sci 1 policy brief, I was amused to come across this headline, which seemed to sum up the whole situation rather well: “Pope’s Comments Set Off Firestorm.”

No duh.

As I continued to buy into this firestorm and read on about the alleged controversy, it became clear to me: there was no controversy at all. It was pure hype—a common consequence of sensational journalism. The media is depressingly fixated on Catholicism and condom use because it simply cannot comprehend why or how an institution as large and powerful as the Catholic Church could possibly continue to regard contraception as immoral. But this media fixation is one which results in merely the blurring of the truth and the confusing of the general public, including Stanford students.

So what exactly is the truth? According to George Weigel, foreword contributor to Pope Benedict XVI’s latest book, “Light of the World,” the pope did not say that “condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS,” as The New York Times reported. The Holy Father meant to say that the use of a condom by a male prostitute infected with AIDS is simply a step toward recognizing the overall immorality of disordered sex, Sacred Heart Major Seminary professor Janet E. Smith argues. Recognizing that a person could be physically harmed from such an act is a step toward understanding that the act itself is harmful. In this book, the pope went on to say that the use of condoms is neither “a real nor moral solution” to the spread of AIDS. Instead, the surest way to avoid the spread of HIV/AIDS is through abstinence and fidelity.

Controversial as these arguments may be, and whether or not you agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality, one thing is crystal clear: nothing has changed in the church’s teaching on contraception. Sorry to burst everyone’s latex bubbles, but the church is far from condoning the use of condoms. She has not, will not and cannot change her position on condoms because the basis of sexual moral ethic is natural law, which essentially does not change regardless of place, time or public pressure. The media should try to grasp this concept to avoid yet another ridiculous firestorm, and members of the general public—including Stanford students—should make sure not to confuse one statement from an entire book as a revolutionary change in Catholic sexual morality.

So, all in all, last week’s media frenzy was thus just that: a frenzy—a frenzy which wasted people’s time and effort, causing people like me to procrastinate work on my policy brief.

Judy Romea ‘14

Daily Fellow